Ukraine is now seriously assessing a revised proposal from the United States concerning its vast natural resources, including minerals, oil, and gas, under terms the nation had previously deemed too burdensome. According to recent discussions and documents reviewed by The New York Times, some of the stipulations within this new deal appear even more stringent than prior drafts.
The negotiation process has unfolded against the backdrop of the largest war seen on the European continent since World War II, where the U.S.-Ukraine alliance has been pivotal. Ukraine has been positioning itself both as a nation facing aggression from Russia and as a country brimming with economic potential to secure support from allies. The current proposal demands Ukraine to forfeit half of its revenue from natural resources, which seemed to be echoed from earlier drafts of the deal.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has been seeking not only economic support but also security guarantees amid fears of the persistent Russian threat. The initial version of the agreement fell short on security commitments, prompting Zelensky to refuse to sign. The new document, dated February 21, outlines financial obligations requiring Ukraine to channel revenues from its natural resources to a specific fund, wherein the U.S. would maintain 100% financial interest.
The figure of $500 billion has become central to these talks, with U.S. officials indicating this amount would be expected from Ukraine as part of the financial arrangement. This figure far surpasses Ukraine's total revenues from natural resources last year, which were reported at only $1.1 billion.
Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of Ukraine’s Parliament, mentioned on Saturday the establishment of a governmental group aimed at dissecting the agreement and wants the associated security guarantees to come with any arrangements. There's caution, nonetheless, as Ukraine has expressed concerns over relinquishing substantial resource revenue to the U.S.
Though under pressure, Ukraine is considering how to navigate these demands without entirely capitulating to U.S. interests. Notably, individuals close to the negotiations have indicated tensions are rising. Trump's Administration reportedly views access to Ukraine's natural wealth as useful compensation for the substantial financial and military resources previously provided.
The new proposal's intricacies also account for revenues stemming from territories currently held by Russian forces. Should these regions be freed, the share of resource revenues diverted to the fund would surge to 66%.
Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy, recently visited Ukraine to discuss these complex issues directly with President Zelensky, yet discontent lingers over how the new proposal may impact Ukraine's sovereignty and economic recovery post-conflict.
Political relations between President Trump and President Zelensky have soured, with pointed critiques exchanged as the U.S. president allegedly labeled Zelensky as “an unelected dictator.” This escalation highlights significant discord, complicates the negotiation process, and brings about doubts over future collaboration.
Experts warn against signing off on such extensive financial commitments. Historically, Ukrainian revenue from natural resources has been minimal and constituted just 2.5% of total budget revenues last year. This has raised concerns about the feasibility of sourcing the demanded funds from its resource sector, which already faces investment and legislative obstacles.
Despite the tensions, the U.S. has indicated it may expand aid after the deal is signed. Yet this again poses questions about what can be guaranteed to Ukraine moving forward.
Mike Waltz, U.S. National Security Adviser, expressed confidence, stating, “President Zelensky is going to sign the deal, and you will see it happen soon.” Indications from the higher echelons of the Trump Administration suggest there’s urgency behind these negotiations, framing the American investment as not just financial but one intertwined with the security of Ukraine. Trump himself remarked, “We’re going to either sign a deal, or there’s going to be significant problems with them.”
With this backdrop, the forthcoming days pose pivotal challenges for Ukraine. The negotiations, characterized by tension and deep scrutiny from various stakeholders both domestic and abroad, reflect not only the economic stakes at play but also the broader geopolitical circumstances facing the embattled nation as it navigates its path toward recovery and stability.